my views on the local news in Minnesota

December 2008

December 10, 2008

Jim Inhofe's blog reports that the number of scientists disputing the UN's man-made global warming claims has increased significantly:

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway
in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting
scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims
made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release
this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the
dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current
and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The
report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over
400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting
scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who
authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

Some quotes from the dissenting scientists:

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the
history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel
deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr.
Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to
others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel
Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by
people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D.
Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported
International Year of the Planet.

December 06, 2008

I've been reading a lot of conservative blogs lately that
have been telling me that all of the lawsuits challenging Mr. Obama's
right to be president are products of some new derangement syndrome.

They emphasize what a long shot it is to get the US Supreme Court to
even pay attention to this. They don't want to back losers. Or whacko
conspiracy theorists.

They don't see any credible evidence to challenge the assertion that
Obama is, in fact, a natural born citizen, as required by the
Constitution.

But what they don't address is this important question: who is entitled to a hearing on this subject?

So far, the courts have ruled that ordinary citizens don't have the
right to a hearing on it, and it doesn't matter if they've contributed
to anyone's campaign or taken any steps that would be frustrated by the
election of a president who is not qualified to serve under the
Constitution.

If you're just an ordinary person, you don't have the right to even ask that question in a court in this country.

Well, this bothers me.

I don't care if the evidence these challengers have so far presented
doesn't convince me, because the question is whether they should be
allowed to present it at all, and whether they should be allowed the
normal rights of litigants, such as subpoenas and ordinary discovery.

If whacko truthers don't have standing to raise a constitutional
challenge to a candidate's right to be president under the
constitution, then who does?

Does it have to be somebody who meets the conservative elite's
definition of an intelligent person? Or could it be just somebody who
might be harmed by an unconstitutional presidency? I imagine there
might be many so situated.

Those who seek to silence this conflict may justify their efforts with the goal of avoiding a constitutional crisis.

But to accomplish this avoidance, they would have to muzzle every
attorney in the country who might be involved in litigation arising out
of bills signed into law by the new president.

December 04, 2008

Steven Milloy, the junkscience.com guy, tells us about
the little green guy invading the offices of the big green guy,
accusing the green goliath of collaborating with the enemy by
advocating cap and trade:

The activist group Environmental Defense got a taste of
what it used to dish out this week when its Washington, D.C., offices
were invaded by another green group, the Global Justice Ecology Project.

The Global Justice Ecology Project (GJEP) essentially accused
Environmental Defense (ED) of collaborating with the enemy -- big
businesses that want cap-and-trade global warming legislation. Noting
that her father was one of ED's founders, GJEP head Rachel Smolker said
she was now "ashamed" of ED because it advocated cap-and-trade. Smolker
said that the European version of cap-and-trade, the Kyoto Protocol,
had "utterly failed" to reduce emissions and served "only to provide
huge profits for the world's most polluting industries."

"Instead of protecting the environment, ED now seems primarily
concerned with protecting corporate bottom lines. I can hear my father
rolling over in his grave," Smolker said.